- 21 hours
Boo for the cyber attack but fuck people who drive drunk repeatedly to the point of needing an interlock device. Maybe don’t drink and drive you fucking sack of shit.
- kunaltyagi@programming.devEnglish12 hours
Driving under the influence is a ban able offence (reckless endangerment) in most countries.
So is a proper driver’s ed before giving even a learner’s permit. US loves giving a multi ton killing machine to untrained people with impulse control. And teenagers
- iSeth@lemmy.mlEnglish16 hours
Perfect solution. Really needs public transit or walkable cities to work so win-win.
19 hoursIt’s a shame that it’s only when they get caught. There’s no excuse for driving drunk.
I can think of plenty, just oh shit we have to get to the hospital please take us to the hospital with a legitimate oh shit we have to get to the hospital tends to override most traffic bullshits. Making the judgment of whether something is a legitimate oh shit we need to get to the hospital is why we have EMTs but like, if the Friday night shift knows you have emergencies when you eat buttered popcorn and there’s a new bee movie out they might just expect you to drive yourself (or rather, have a trusted friend and swearing team buddy) because you’re half expecting a damn emergency at the bee movie and you’ve had twelve too many, they know which roads to keep clear of toddlers and the elderly. Damn bees.
i’m shopping the script to paramount. she loses her bee husband in a drunk driving accident and doesn’t know how to handle the steady swarm of bee courting.
- plz1@lemmy.worldEnglish20 hours
I know someone that did it once and having to have one of these as a result. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.
“I know someone who only did a murder once and they locked them right up. Suggest you reset your opinions a bit.”
Replace murder with any crime.
If you don’t want to face the consequences, don’t do the action that begets the consequences.
TLDR: don’t fuck around if you don’t wanna find out.
- Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 hours
Interlock devices are the bare minimum if you insist on allowing people who have proven they will drive drunk to continue to drive.
- plz1@lemmy.worldEnglish5 hours
I was arguing with the point of “repeatedly” being a determining factor for having to have this device. It’s not reality, once is enough.
- Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksEnglish3 hours
When you consider that most people get away with a crime dozens of times at least before getting caught, then yes being caught once is enough.
- cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
sure its not the same, but it gets really close, really fast
- 20 hours
Nope, shouldn’t of done it once. Pretty easy to not drink and drive.
- _g_be@lemmy.worldEnglish13 hours
What kind of emergency is more important than the lives of people that might be killed by a drunk driver’s mistake? And how is it impossible to find an alternative solution?
- aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish13 hours
Where do you guys live? Is it America? Because I kinda feel like in America I’m never surprised that someone drove drunk.
(Especially before Uber.)
- kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish12 hours
What emergency is so time sensitive it’s worth killing yourself and a random family for?
The fact that you can’t actually think of an emergency is telling.
- kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish12 hours
Still didn’t name an emergency worth killing yourself and a random family over
honestly, any emergency that involves hitting you and yours. that’s because i don’t feel like remembering them. i’ve been the car that the police pulls over because it’s driving erratically and then takes over driving. it’s an abstract concept to you. not to me.
- kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish12 hours
Having a breathalyzer is letting them off easy, they deserve to lose their license
- plz1@lemmy.worldEnglish5 hours
They lost their license for 2 years. The equipment was required to get it back.
- 1 day
This is a great story to illuminate the large number of problems that could be addressed by decent public transit, better options for walking and biking, etc.
- OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
And here I was thinking these blow-and-go contraptions were self contained. I should have known better.
- teyrnon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.
- Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.
- Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish16 hours
Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?
- 12 hours
Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering.
It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local.
- KotFlinte@feddit.orgEnglish4 hours
Yeah I don’t know, that’s a whole bunch of unnecessary surveillance.
Make the device work locally, make it in any way tamper resistant and mandate a yearly check up at a certified autoshop.
The solution to problems does not have to be “control every possible thing at all times”.
People deserve not to be monitored around the clock.
- Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish23 hours
Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device
Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.
- 21 hours
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI, by your logic ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Don’t break the law If you don’t want to be monitored by the state.
- Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish13 hours
Interlocks are for people who have had a DUI
Yes I am actually aware, thanks.
ankle monitors should not be able to be accessed remotely.
Ankle monitors monitor location. Interlock devices monitor intoxication levels, and locally send a signal to the vehicle about whether it’s ok to drive. The difference should be obvious.
- unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.mlEnglish12 hours
Wait, are you telling me…
…that a device meant to disable a vehicle…
…was used to disable a vehicle?
Whould’ve thought?
It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool
- prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish1 day
Someone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn’t phone home, the company (or the court) doesn’t know it’s been tampered with.
This is all theoretical, I know nothing about this tech.
- 1 day
It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.
- Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish23 hours
If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
If somebody is good enough to tamper with the part that checks for BAC, why not also tamper with the part that phones home? Would they even need to?
- Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
The device doesn’t just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It’s likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.
- XLE@piefed.socialEnglish5 minutes
How often do these devices phone home that tapering would be detected? Surely they can’t do it that indefinitely. Or maybe they can. I don’t know
I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.
- 1 day
Showing up once a week isn’t a problem if it’s only a handful of people going to the same place.
However, when you have a lot of people on this device in a small area, you’ll have to ask them to go farther and farther away. Or else you’re going to outsource who is checking on the device, and that’s going to start driving up the price for this service.
According to some stats I found there were about 350k interlock devices in use in the entire US in 2016. That’s a tiny fraction of the amount of drivers we have. Unless they’re all concentrated in the same spot and have tripled or more in numbers this isn’t going to be a problem in a population of 350 million.
- Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish23 hours
If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)
Hegseth is gonna be even more angry than
bornnormal when he can’t drive from point a to point b because of this.- criss_cross@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
That’s why he lives in the base. So he doesn’t have to admit he got his license revoked.
- Greyghoster@aussie.zoneEnglish1 day
How are these people planning to drive? The cost of fuel is excruciating! If it wasn’t because of Operation Epstein Fury, driving may have been an option.
- arcine@jlai.luEnglish1 day
That’s why you use the ones with the weird salt inside. No computer, no problem !
- Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Only those cars that needed a breathalyzer for reasons.
Not much of a loss, I’d say.
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Per bidens Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that’s going to be every new car starting this year
- 21 hours
Passive systems, not a breathalyzer. Still fucking stupid but one can disable the cameras or stop the vehicle from phoning home. They won’t be able to disable your vehicle remotely and it appears to be more a while driving thing rather than a before driving thing.
- 1 day
Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.
I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.
More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Yeah I’d actually prefer a breathalyzer if they feel they need to do something
- kungen@feddit.nuEnglish1 day
Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle?
There are already cameras inside most new cars, but the purpose is to see if you’re nodding off when driving and such. It’s a good thing to keep unsafe drivers off the road. The bad thing is the lack of privacy regulation.
